Research on Language and Social Interaction

ISSN: 0835-1813 (Print) 1532-7973 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls20

Achieving Authority: Discursive Practices in

Russian Girls' Pretend Play

Olga Griswold

To cite this article: Olga Griswold (2007) Achieving Authority: Discursive Practices in Russian
Girls' Pretend Play, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40:4, 291-319, DOI:
10.1080/08351810701471286

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701471286

Published online: 05 Dec 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 497

View related articles

Citing articles: 45 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hrls20
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 291–319
Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Russian
Olga Griswold
Girls’ Pretend Play

Achieving Authority: Discursive Practices

in Russian Girls’ Pretend Play

Olga Griswold
Department of English and Foreign Languages
California Polytechnic University at Pomona

In this article, I examine how Russian girls deploy bodily orientation combined with
linguistic actions—such as permission and information requests, directives, role ne-
gotiation, and assistance appeals—to display their subordination to the authority of
dominant peers in nonconflictual environments. The article is based on the micro-
analysis of video-recorded, self-organized play and talk activities in a friendship
group of girls, ages 6 to 9 years. The data were collected as part of a larger
ethnographic study conducted in a mid-sized industrial town in Western Russia. I an-
alyze contextual configurations coconstructed by participants deploying multiple
semiotic fields including language, body, physical space, and objects occupying this
space. Based on this analysis, I argue that in an environment where participants can-
not invoke institutionally established roles, they treat common authoritative criteria
as tools that can be actively and deliberately manipulated in interaction to establish
an authoritative hierarchy.

In this article, I examine how Russian girls deploy bodily orientation

combined with linguistic actions—such as permission and information re-
quests, directives, role negotiation, and assistance appeals—to display
their subordination to the authority of dominant peers in nonconflictual
environments. This study stands in contrast with previous discourse-ana-
lytic research, which has mainly focused on how children claim power over
others in situations of conflict and competition for more dominant roles in

Correspondence should be sent to Olga Griswold, Department of English and Foreign Lan-
guages, California Polytechnic University at Pomona, 3801 West Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA
91768. E-mail: ovgriswold@csupomona.edu
292 Olga Griswold

the play and which tended concentrate on the analysis of verbal interaction,
with little attention given to the physical positioning of multiple partici-
pants in the interactional space.1
Authority as a moral and political concept has been extensively inves-
tigated in fields of academic inquiry ranging from political philosophy to
education and law. The focus of philosophical investigations has been the
political balances among authority, power, and government (e.g., Os-
trowski, 2002; Shapiro, 2001). Relying on the philosophical understanding
of authority as legitimized power, sociologists have explored the criteria
for such legitimization—the leader’s charisma, traditional norms, legal ra-
tionality (Scott, 1973; Weber, 1964) and the principles of absolute value
(Lovell, 2003; Spencer, 1970). Both philosophers and sociologists have ar-
gued that authority emerges when subordinates accept as legitimate both
the right of those in power to direct the actions of others and the rationale
for this right (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981, p. 39). Whereas philosophical
and sociological inquiry has concentrated on the notion of power legitimi-
zation in the abstract, anthropological research has focused on the analysis
of authoritative structures within particular cultures. Such research has es-
tablished that social statuses, determined by such factors as heredity, gen-
der, age, familial position, knowledge, expertise, or institutional identity,
serve as a foundation for the exercise and recognition of authority (e.g., Al-
len, 1984; Banton, 1965; Goodenough, 1965; Lentz, 1998; Linton, 1973;
Rushforth, 1992).
Despite the persistent interest in authority as a political concept, how-
ever, until recently, social science has paid little attention to the actual prac-
tices through which authority is instantiated. It is only with the rise of eth-
nography of communication and conversation analysis in the 1960s that
researchers have begun to examine the production of authority in specific
contexts by examining linguistic actions of interaction participants. For ex-
ample, linguists and anthropologists have investigated the construction of
authority through the use of ceremonial language (e.g., Duranti, 1992),
honorifics (e.g., Agha, 1993, 1994; Keating, 1998), or claims of superior
institutional positions (e.g., Kiesling, 2001).
Most research dealing with the performance of authority, however, has
been conducted in institutional environments looking at medical discourse
(e.g., Heritage & Sefi, 1992; Treichler, Franke, Kramarae, Zoppi, & Beck-
man, 1984), legal discourse (e.g., Atkinson & Drew, 1979; Ehrlich, 2001;
C. Goodwin, 1994; Matoesian, 1993; Thetela, 2003), and educational dis-
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 293

course (e.g., Buzzelli & Johnston, 2001; Gore, 1994, 1996; Mehan, 1996).
Although varied in their scope of inquiry and investigative purposes, these
studies reveal two common points: (a) that authority is displayed through
talk-in-interaction and (b) that authority can be legitimated by interaction
participants invoking their institutional roles. The latter point is particu-
larly significant for research on discursive practices of authority and for
this article in particular. Within institutional settings, authority can be legit-
imated by factors lying outside the interaction, although it is enacted
through the interaction. In other words, the roles of doctors, patients, teach-
ers, or students are institutionally assigned to interactants prior to their en-
counters (Bourdieu, 1991), which enables the authority of a doctor over a
patient or a teacher over a student to be displayed through their talk. The
display of authority in more egalitarian contexts in which institutions have
not assigned roles to the participants is potentially more problematic. What
criteria do participants rely on in claiming or obeying authority? How are
these criteria invoked through the interactants’ talk and actions? How are
these criteria related to the participants’ cultural understanding of author-
ity? Answering these questions is essential to understanding how authority
is constructed outside institutional contexts.
Children’s neighborhood peer groups present a particularly fitting site
for the investigation of noninstitutional practices of authority. First, the for-
mation of such groups is not regulated by any particular organizations such
as schools, child care centers, or boys-and-girls clubs. Therefore, the distri-
bution of authority within them is not governed by institutional structures.
Rather, children establish their own social orders, relying on their own cul-
tural criteria, within their own “arenas of action” (Hutchby & Moran-Ellis,
1998, p. 10). Examining the practices that children use to construct social
hierarchies will give insight into how authority can be understood and in-
voked during mundane activities.
Second, children’s groups are unique systems that do not merely
mimic the norms and values of the adult world but adapt them to their
own environment (Corsaro, 1997). Therefore, children’s groups need to
be studied in their own right and viewed as societies with their own so-
cial institutions including the institution of polity, which governs the
maintenance of social order and the distribution of power. Children can
and do create political systems within their peer groups (M. H. Goodwin,
1990). Yet, at present, rather little is known about the organization of
such minipolitics. In this article, I attempt to broaden the current state of
294 Olga Griswold

knowledge about the construction of informal political systems within

children’s peer groups by examining one aspect of such systems—the le-
gitimation of power.
Third, previous research on peer interaction has established that chil-
dren are no strangers to the language of power. Studies of children’s
all-male and mixed-gender groups have documented strong concerns about
social hierarchies among boys, displayed through the use of aggressive and
direct language in competing for more dominant play roles (e.g., Adler,
Kless, & Adler, 1992; Berentzen, 1984; Davis, 1988; M. H. Goodwin,
1990; Kyratzis & Guo, 1996; Sachs, 1987; Sheldon, 1990). Much of the
early research in this area operated on the assumption that this preference
for dominance among boys was attributable to their gender, that is, that the
desire for power was inherently male. Research on girls’ groups, however,
has uncovered that, contrary to previous assumptions (e.g., Lever, 1978;
Maltz & Borker, 1982), girls also actively enforce complex social hierar-
chies during their play activities (e.g., Adler et al., 1992; DeHart, 1996;
Evaldsson, 2007; M. H. Goodwin, 1988, 1992, 2001, 2006; Kyratzis &
Guo, 2001; Sheldon, 1996). Moreover, girls frequently use powerful lan-
guage to establish dominance (e.g., Evaldsson, 2003; M. H. Goodwin,
2002; Kyratzis & Guo, 1996), although they generally avoid hostile talk
and manage opposition while keeping up the appearance of “playing nice”
(e.g., Sheldon, 1997). In short, girls are as concerned with power hierar-
chies and as capable of using powerful language to establish and enforce
them as boys are.
Despite these significant findings, research on peer interaction has not
directly addressed one important aspect of power relationships among chil-
dren, namely, the construction of authority or legitimized power. Only a
few studies have examined the invocation of some common criteria of au-
thority such as familial roles (e.g., M. H. Goodwin, 1990), age (e.g.,
Kyratzis, Marx, & Wade, 2001; Sheldon, 1996), expertise (e.g., M. H.
Goodwin, 2002; Kyratzis et al., 2001), institutional roles (Evaldsson,
2007), or physicality (Evaldsson, 2003, 2004); but even these studies have
not discussed in detail how children use these criteria to display subordina-
tion to dominant peers, thus proactively legitimating power from below.
Furthermore, most of the previous research on children’s power structures
has taken conflict to be a major, if not the only, domain for the exercise of
power. This is not surprising as, to use the words of Jacquemet (2001), con-
flict “provides a central force for the construction of social relations” and
“allows speakers’ wills of power to be heard” (p. 37). Thus, the establish-
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 295

ment of social hierarchies within children’s groups has most frequently

been investigated in the encounters where participants actively competed
with each other for more dominant roles. As a result, significantly more at-
tention has been paid to the linguistic practices of claiming power than to
those of displaying subordination (but see M. H. Goodwin, 1990, and
Kyratzis et. al, 2001, for some exceptions). This is a limitation because in-
teractions occurring outside the environment of conflict also contain dis-
plays of power. Such interactions include practices of coconstructing au-
thority in which children legitimate power by both claiming it and ratifying
it from below. In this article, I examine the legitimation of authority as an
interactional achievement and analyze the participants’ invocation of au-
thoritative criteria in the larger activity of pretend play.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The data for this study were collected in a medium-sized industrial

town in Western Russia in the summer of 2003. They consist of video re-
cordings of children involved in play and talk activities in the public spaces
near the apartment buildings where the children’s families reside. The
video recordings are accompanied by ethnographic notes taken during the
researcher’s participant observation. For this study, video recordings cap-
turing the play among girls between the ages of 6 and 9 have been selected
from the corpus of data documenting play and talk activities of two differ-
ent peer groups.2 All the girls in the playgroup analyzed in this article were
from working- and middle-class families.3 All the girls lived either with
their parents or grandparents at the time of the study.4 A favorite place
where the girls liked to play was the premises of the neighborhood pre-
school, which closed at about 5:30 p.m. but whose grounds remained ac-
cessible to the neighborhood residents. The children enjoyed this area be-
cause it had well-kept playground equipment including monkey bars,
slides, sand boxes, and large three-sided covered sheds referred to as
verandahs. The girls were loosely supervised by two or three mothers
and/or grandmothers of the group members. The adults usually sat at a con-
siderable distance from the children, not interfering in their play but keep-
ing the children in their full view at all times. The children’s favorite activi-
ties were playing house, engaging in language games, or showing off their
agility on monkey bars.
296 Olga Griswold

The digital video data were transcribed and analyzed according to the
conventions of conversation analysis (CA). CA methodology allows for the
investigation of the instantiation of social phenomena as they are made rel-
evant by interaction participants in and through talk-in-interaction (Sacks,
1995; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). From this inherently ethno-
methodologic perspective, I examine how, in the process of play activities,
children establish hierarchies of authority by placing themselves in posi-
tions subordinate to a dominant peer. In addition to the analysis of talk, in
presenting my argument, I also incorporate the analysis of bodily positions
of the interaction participants in the physical space of the play. In doing so,
I rely on the notion of contextual configurations—sets of semiotic fields,
including language, the material environment and objects within it, as well
as bodily positions and movements that interactants orient to in construct-
ing and interpreting social action (C. Goodwin, 2000).

DISPLAYING SUBORDINATION THROUGH

LANGUAGE AND EMBODIMENT

Previous research on power relations in children’s groups has revealed

that girls control the behavior of others through such practices as claiming
superior roles in the play (e.g., Berentzen, 1984; M. H. Goodwin, 1990;
Sheldon, 1996), instructing others on the appropriate mode of performing
actions (e.g., DeHart, 1996; Evaldsson, 2004; M. H. Goodwin, 1995,
2001), nominating and maintaining the frame of the play (e.g., Sheldon,
1996; Kyratzis et al., 2001), determining the rules of the games, and con-
trolling access to these games (e.g., M. H. Goodwin, 2001, Evaldsson,
2003). Because this research focused on the practices of gaining domi-
nance in a playgroup, the nonperformance of any of the aforementioned
verbal actions and the acceptance of the rules, roles, and play-frame deci-
sions set by leading peers were frequently analyzed as public displays of
subordination by less assertive playmates. Careful examination of girls’
talk in my data, however, demonstrates that accepting another’s dominance
is not the only way of displaying subordination. Examples presented in this
article show that girls can preemptively place themselves in subordinate
positions, thus ascribing power onto a selected peer by assigning to her the
most powerful role in the play, seeking her help as an arbitrator in a dispute,
and asking her to frame crucial elements of the play such as ages and edu-
cational levels of the play characters or the boundaries of the play space. It
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 297

is important to note that this self-placement on the lower rungs of the social
ladder is accomplished in an anticipatory manner, before the dominant peer
takes a chance to claim a superior position in the play. Moreover, the verbal
actions of participants are accompanied by their positioning themselves in
the physical space in a manner consistent with their verbal displays of sub-
ordination to authority. Thus, in legitimating the power of one member of
their group, playmates call on several semiotic resources: language, body,
and the physical play space.

Subordination Through Familial Roles

The girls participating in the interaction in Segment 1a are Dasha, age

7, about to start first grade at the time of the study; Galja, age 7, about to
start second grade;5 Maja, age 6, about to start first grade; Corinna, age 8,
about to start third grade; and Larissa, age 9, about to start fourth grade.
Prior to Segment 1a, Dasha, Galja, Maja, and Corinna were engaged in
making arrangements for the play of house when a dispute arose among
them regarding the sharing of play dishes. The dispute was not resolved—
an occurrence not uncommon in children’s interactions (M. H. Goodwin,
1990; Maynard, 1985). Larissa was not present during the dispute. She first
joins the playgroup at the beginning of the segment. At the beginning of the
interaction, Maja, Dasha, Galja, and Corinna are crouched on the floor of a
verandah, silently sorting toys:

Segment 1a

1 → Maja: Lari:::ssa:. ((smiling)) (1.0) Ty mama.

LARISSA (1.0) YOU MOM
Lari:::ssa::: (1.0) You are the mom.
((remains crouched on the floor throughout the turn))
2 (0.4)
3 → Dasha: Ty mama nasha.
YOU MOM OURS.
You’re our mom
4 → To:ka ty vybiraj sibje komnatu-=
ONLY YOU CHOOSE SELF ROOM
Only you’ve got to pick a room for yourself-=
5 =Nam- u na:s v`t-
=US- BY US DPP6
=For us here-
298 Olga Griswold

6 Nasha v`t pa balkonjchiku

OURS DPP ALONG BALCONY
Ours goes right here along the balcony.

As soon as Larissa appears on the scene, Maja, directing her gaze and
turning her body toward Larissa but not rising from the crouched posi-
tion, nominates the newly arrived girl for the role of the mother in the play
(line 1). Dasha immediately ratifies this nomination by confirming it and
making explicit the roles of other girls, including herself, as Larissa’s
children by adding the possessive “ours” to “mom” (line 3). Both the ini-
tial nomination and its ratification are accomplished through declarative
statements—a grammatical structure usually considered to be a form of
exercising power over others in the negotiation of play roles (DeHart,
1996; M. H. Goodwin, 1990; Kyratzis et al, 2001). However, one must
also take into account the actions Maja and Dasha accomplish in their talk
in lines 1 and 3. Rather than claiming powerful roles for themselves, the
girls assign such a role to Larissa, thus putting her into a position of famil-
ial authority while relegating themselves to the less authoritative posi-
tions of children. Similarly, in line 4, Dasha continues to use an imperative
form of the verb, commonly used for claiming power, not to assign a play
space she chose for Larissa but to give the latter girl her pick of such a
space. One can thus see that the use of particular grammatical structures in
and of itself does not convey the desire to gain dominance over others. In
fact, apparently the same linguistic forms can be used both to claim power
and to display subordination to authority as the preceding example attests.
It is not, therefore, the grammar of an utterance that makes it either a claim
for dominance or a display of subordination but the action accomplished
through it.
Also notable is the physical arrangement of the girls’ bodies as they es-
tablish their respective positions within the authoritative hierarchy. As
Larissa strides confidently “on stage,” so to say (the stride clearly visible
and hearable on the video recording but, unfortunately, hard to convey in
the written format), the rest of the playmates remain crouched on the floor
(see Figure 1). Their verbal actions of subordination are performed from
these crouched positions, quite literally from below, whereas Larissa as the
dominant peer towers over the play scene.
We are thus presented with a physical embodiment of the emerging au-
thoritative structure with Larissa at the top and the rest of the girls at the
bottom.
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 299

FIGURE 1 You are our Mom.

Subordination Through Invoking A Legal Process

With the major familial roles distributed, the girls proceed to ratify
Larissa’s authoritative status further:

Segment 1b

7 → Dasha A ani nam ni dajut-.

PRT7 THEY US NOT GIVE-
But they are not sharing with us-
((Dasha points at the dishes as she speaks. Maja and Galja are
gazing at Larissa from their crouched positions on the floor))
8 Larissa: ((Looks at the dishes, but does not speak; Maja looks
away))
9 → Galja: E:TA VSjA JE:J °v’t.
THIS ALL HER-DAT8 DPP
ALL OF THI:S IS FOR HE:R °here.

Dasha calls on Larissa to settle the previously unresolved dispute re-

garding the tableware, formulating her call as a complaint about the unco-
operative behavior of her playmates (line 7) and pointing to the object of
the dispute. By addressing her complaint to Larissa, who was not initially
involved in the argument, Dasha invokes a vernacular version of legal arbi-
tration: an appeal to an impartial third party to resolve a grievance. In initi-
ating such a process, the parties involved in the grievance express a tacit
agreement to abide by the arbitrator’s decision. Dasha’s choice of Larissa
as the arbitrator displays her trust both in Larissa’s ability to resolve the
300 Olga Griswold

dispute and in the willingness of the opposing parties to accept Larissa’s

decision.
Although Larissa does not respond verbally, her gaze and bodily orien-
tation—as she looks down at the dishes on the bench (line 8)—are taken by
her playmates as an acceptance of the arbitrator role. While Dasha is articu-
lating her grievance, Galja and Maja, the defendants in the dispute, are gaz-
ing up at Larissa from their crouching positions; but as soon as the issue has
been put on the floor and Larissa directs her gaze to the dishes, one of the
offending parties, Maja, looks away, displaying her disengagement from
the conflict. Through this action, Maja indirectly ratifies Larissa’s author-
ity: In demonstrating her reluctance to argue for her position, Maja indi-
cates her possible acceptance of Larissa’s resolution of the dispute.
Galja exhibits her acceptance of Larissa’s authority more proactively:
She directs her gaze to Larissa, sweepingly points to the dishes, and offers a
redress of the grievance, indicating the dishes she is willing to share (line 9;
Figure 2). By addressing her offer of restitution to Larissa while marking
another girl—note the use of the pronoun “her” in line 9—as the recipient
of this restitution, Galja ratifies Dasha’s choice of Larissa as an appropriate
arbitrator for the conflict, thus also ratifying Larissa’s position of legiti-
mate authority.
Larissa’s designation as the dispute arbitrator is consistent with her
earlier nomination for the role of the mother in the play. As the person en-
joying the highest status role in the play of house, she can take charge of all
aspects of the play frame including the participants’ use of the toys. It is im-
portant to note that in this interaction, Larissa remains completely silent.

FIGURE 2 Restitution offer.

Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 301

She does not make any attempts to actively claim a position of power in the
play. The power is assigned to her by her playmates preemptively.
Moreover, this assignment of power requires that participants not
merely produce relevant speech acts, such as complaining or offering resti-
tution, but orient visibly to each other’s bodily positions and objects they
are playing with. Namely, to express her grievance, Dasha employs ele-
ments of three semiotic systems: a negative description of Galja and Maja’s
behavior (language), a pointing gesture (body), and the dishes constituting
the chief object of contention (material objects). Similarly, in combining
language and gesture in making her restitution offer, Galja takes into ac-
count the position of the dishes and the direction of Larissa’s gaze. Thus,
the girls’ talk, their bodies, and the selected objects in their environment
come together to create a locally relevant contextual configuration (C.
Goodwin, 2000) in which the assignment of power to Larissa takes place.

Subordination in the Construction of The Play Frame

The invocation of age. In addition to invoking familial roles, the

girls in this playgroup also rely on age and knowledge/expertise as authori-
tative criteria. However, they do not invoke their actual ages or knowledge
to establish a social hierarchy but rather refer to these criteria only within
the constraints of their play roles, treating them not as individuals’ preexist-
ing and inalienable characteristics that entitle them to particular social sta-
tuses but as tools that they can manipulate to ascribe power onto one of the
members. The following segment involving the negotiation of age roles at-
tests to this:

Segment 2a

1 Galja: Laris, ah (.)Dasha uzhe: (.)

LARISSA PRT (.)DASHA ALREADY (.)
Larissa, has (.) Dasha already (.) finished
2 adintzatj klass`f konchila pa igre?
ELEVEN GRADES FINISHED BY PLAY?
eleventh grade according to the play?
3 (0.3)
4 Larissa: mmm nni znaju. Shchas.pasmatrju. (0.8)Ja padumaju.
MMM NOT KNOW-FUT-1.NOW SEE-FUT-1. (0.8) I THINK-FUT-1.
mmm (I) donn’t know. Let me.see.(0.8) Let me think.
302 Olga Griswold

5 Dd- Dasha Dasha Dasha. Dasha uchitza f yn-sty-tuty.

DASHA DASHA DASHA. DASHA STUDIES IN UNIVERSITY.
Dd-Dasha Dasha Dasha. Dasha goes to the u-ni-ver-si-ty.
6 (1.0)

At the beginning of this episode, Dasha (age 7) and Larissa (age 9) are
playing together at some distance away from their other playmates. They
are engaged in a quiet intimate conversation from which the rest of the girls
are excluded due to the space separating them. This physical arrangement
makes an alliance between Dasha and Larissa publicly visible and relevant
to the unfolding of the interaction during which fictitious ages are assigned
to the play characters. When Galja (age 7) initiates the sequence, she dis-
plays her orientation to Dasha and Larissa’s alliance. First, rather than
claiming her own position in the pretend family by selecting a desired age
and grade level for her character, Galja requests that Larissa be the one to
nominate the characters’ ages (lines 1–2). This places Larissa in the posi-
tion of an authoritative decision maker. Second, Galja inquires not about
her own age but about Dasha’s, formulating her question in such a way as to
presuppose that Dasha’s status—that of a high school graduate9—is al-
ready relatively high. Through this formulation, Galja demonstrates her
understanding of the alliance between Larissa and Dasha and of its conse-
quences: As the group leader’s ally, Dasha is likely to enjoy a higher social
position than the other playmates. Galja’s nomination of Dasha for the role
of a high school graduate is especially interesting in the light of the fact that
although Dasha and Galja are both 7 years old, Galja is 1 year ahead of
Dasha in school (see Note 4). Larissa accepts her authoritative status by
proceeding to upgrade Dasha’s age role to that of a university student (line
5). She then assigns the next most desirable role of a student just starting
university studies to Corinna (Segment 2b, line 6). Note that Dasha, who is
7 and is about to start first grade in the fall, receives an older and more ma-
ture play role than Corinna who is 8 and is about to start third grade, sug-
gesting that the actual ages and educational levels of the girls have less
bearing on the formation of hierarchical relationships among them than
their already established alliance with the dominant playmate:

Segment 2b:

7 → Larissa: Carr-i:n:a pirikhodit10 f institut

CARINA TRANSITIONS INTO UNIVERSITY
Carr-i:n:a is starting university
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 303

8 → Corinna: °Ja ni budu (1.3) uchitza. Ni budu. ((mumbling))

°I NOT AUX-FUT (1.3) STUDY NOT AUX-FUT.
°I will not (1.3) I won’t go to school
9 Galja: A ja kuda pajdu.
PRT I WHERE GO-FUT
And where will I be going?
10 (mm-mm) mjne byla sjemj ljet.
(MM-MM) ME WAS SEVEN YEARS.
I:::: have turned seven years old.
11 → Corinna: T’shta u minja shchas kanikuly.
BECAUSE BY ME NOW VACATION
‘Cuz I am on vacation now.
12 Hah-oh.
hah-oh.
Hah-oh.

The development of this interaction in lines 7 through 12 provides an

interesting insight into how power can be legitimated and ratified by subor-
dinates refusing to challenge authoritative decisions even when they are not
satisfied with them. While Larissa assigns the role of a student about to
start college to Corinna, the girls are gazing at each other (see Figure 3 and
line 7). Corinna is unhappy with the role she receives. The mutual orienta-
tion of the girls’ gazes places Corinna in an excellent position to challenge
the role assignment openly and on the record, as gaze direction is a power-
ful interactional tool in the selection of talk addressees and next speakers
(C. Goodwin, 1981; Lerner, 2003). However, Corinna does not do so. In
fact, she actively shifts the contextual configuration of the interaction (C.

FIGURE 3 Age role assignment.

304 Olga Griswold

Goodwin, 2000) to avoid direct confrontation: She looks away from Laris-
sa and mumbles her refusal to go to school (line 8, Figure 4). She is, there-
fore, careful not to select Larissa as a direct addressee of her complaint.
Thus, although the language of Corinna’s objection is rather direct—she
uses a negative statement and even repeats her negation (line 8)—her
bodily orientation and gaze direction visibly demonstrate her reluctance to
engage in a conflict with Larissa or to challenge Larissa’s decision about
Corinna’s role in the play. Moreover, Corinna appears to object not to the
role itself but to the activity of studying associated with it. Rather than con-
fronting Larissa’s authority, Corinna finds a compromise between Larissa’s
role distribution and her own role preference by claiming to be on vacation
(line 11).
After higher status age roles have been assigned to Dasha and Corinna,
Galja has reasons to become anxious about her own position. She attempts
to resolve the problem and seal her place in the social hierarchy of the
group by explicitly asking Larissa to assign her an age-grade role:

Segment 2c:

9 → Galja: A ja kuda pajdu.

PRT I WHERE GO-FUT
And where will I be going.
10 → mj::::ne byla sjemj ljet.
me:::: WAS SEVEN YEARS
I::::: have turned seven years old.
11 Corinna: T’shta u minja shchas kanikuly.
BECAUSEBY ME NOW VACATION.
‘Cuz I am on vacation now.

FIGURE 4 Protesting the age assignment.

Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 305

12 Hah-oh.
hah-oh
Hah-oh.
13 → Galja: Mnje byla sjemj ljet. Mnje sja- mnje schas
ME WAS SEVEN YEARS. ME NOW- ME NOW
I have turned seven. Will I now- will I now
14 → f pjervyj kla:s ili va ftaroj.
INTO FIRST GRADE OR INTO SECOND.
(be going)to first grade or to second.
15 → Larissa: mm?
Mm?
16 → Galja: u- ja f shkolu ili f *sadu.=
U- I INTO SCHOOL-ACC OR IN KINDERGARTEN-ABL11
u-(Am) I (going to) school or (am I in)*kindergarten.=
17 → =mnje sjemj ljet uzhe
=ME SEVEN YEARS ALREADY.
=I am already seven years old.
18 → Larissa: Ty: f schko:lu.
YOU INTO SCHOOL-ACC
You: (will be going) to schoo:l

Here, for the first time in the sequence, Galja brings up her actual age
(line 10), thus marking a close link between maturation and schooling.12 In
the absence of Larissa’s immediate response, Galja chooses a role either of
a first grader or second grader for herself, still asking Larissa to make the fi-
nal authoritative confirmation of the choice (lines 13–14).
Both of Galja’s proposed roles are significantly younger than the roles
of Dasha and Corinna. This reflects Galja’s sensitivity to the descending or-
der in which Larissa has chosen to assign the age roles so far. This sensitiv-
ity—as well as the deferment to Larissa authority—is further evident in
Galja’s backing down from her original proposal to the choice between a
kindergartener and a first grader (line 15). The back down takes place when
Larissa initiates repair on Galja’s talk in line 14. Larissa’s repair initiator is of
the broadest kind—“mm?”—allowing Galja to interpret it as Larissa’s prob-
lem in hearing what Galja has just said and therefore, to repeat her choices of
roles as they are. Instead, she takes the repair initiation to be a marker of the
dispreferred character of the upcoming response. In other words, Galja sees
it as a signal that her request to be given the role of either a first or second
grader is about to be denied. In the face of this incipient rejection, rather than
insisting on her options, Galja demotes herself to the younger roles of a child
just starting formal schooling or even possibly still a kindergartener (line 16).
Thus, Galja displays her submission to Larissa’s authority by anticipating the
latter girl’s unfavorable response and preemptively placing herself in a
306 Olga Griswold

younger role than she may have preferred and, in fact, younger than her ac-
tual age. Galja’s willingness to downgrade her real age serves as further ev-
idence of her deferment to Larissa’s authority.13

The invocation of knowledge. Like age, the knowledge that the girls
invoke to assign authority is frequently related to the frame of the play
rather than to objective reality. In Segment 3 following, Galja first rein-
forces Larissa’s authority as the “mom” in the play and then extends this
authority beyond the enacted familial position to include the presumed
knowledge of the organization of the fictional play space:

Segment 3

1 Galja: Ma:m. Ja pajdu, skhazhu,14 kuplju *shko:ljnik,

MOM. I GO-FUT GO-FUT BUY-FUT SCHKOLNIK-NOM/ACC
Mo:m. I’m gonna go, buy (some school supplies at) the
“Schkolnik” store.
2 Larissa: Ladna. skhadi:.
OKAY. GO.
Okay. Go.
((Galja walks away; reaching the end of the verandah, she turns around and goes
back))
3 Galja: Larissa a gdje u nas magazi:ny.
larissa prt where by us stores.
Larissa, and where are our sto:res.
4 Larissa: Magazi:ny?
STORES?
Stores?
5 A vot tuta vot u nas vsjo
PRT DPP HERE DPP BY US ALL
Well right here we have all this
6 v`t eta v`t vsjo magaziny (bu`ut).
DPP THIS DPP ALL STORES BE-FUT
all this (area) is going to be stores.
7 Galja: Mhm.
MHM
Mhm.

In this segment, Galja speaks in a double voice (Barnes & Vangelisti,

1995; Sheldon, 1992), acting both as the daughter in the play and as her-
self—a fact reflected in her use of forms of address “mom” and “Larissa”
in lines 1 and 3, respectively. She initiates the sequence by asking her pre-
tend mother to give her permission to go shopping for school supplies15
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 307

(line 1), which Larissa promptly grants (line 2). In this portion of the inter-
action, the two girls reproduce the previously established authoritative hi-
erarchy within the constraints of their play roles.
With the permission sequence closed, Galja proceeds with the action
she requested the permission for. However, she finds herself faced with a
problem: The pretend shopping area has not been defined. Although noth-
ing prevents Galja from defining this area herself, contributing to the con-
struction of the play frame, she does not do so. Instead, she returns to Laris-
sa and asks her to tell her the location of the stores (line 3). In this action,
she displays an assumption that Larissa has the authoritative knowledge of
the play space that other members of the group, including Galja herself, do
not possess. The present time frame of Galja’s question, evident in absence
of the copula be in Russian, suggests that she treats the location of the
stores as already determined. Larissa accepts the position of knowledge-
able authority by defining the shopping area (lines 4–6). In this acceptance,
however, she somewhat recasts her role. By using the future tense of the
verb be (line 6), she acts as a person proposing a certain element of the play
frame rather than a person already in the know of this element. In lines 3
through 7, Galja and Larissa talk as themselves rather than as their charac-
ters, taking the authoritative structure they have coconstructed within the
play frame and extending it outside the boundaries of their play roles.

Subordination through displays of helplessness. In play activities

that involve physicality rather than the creation of an imaginative play
frame, verbal and physical displays of skill mastery serve as powerful tools
of claiming power over playmates (e.g., Evaldsson, 2003; M. H. Goodwin,
1995, 2001). Similarly, as the example following shows, verbal and physi-
cal displays of clumsiness and helplessness can serve as interactional
means of placing oneself in a powerless, subordinate position. Prior to the
beginning of this interaction, Galja was playing on the monkey bars while
Maja was watching her. Galja got stuck in the bars hanging somewhat up-
side down. After unsuccessfully attempting to extricate herself, she appeals
for help to Larissa, who happens to be walking by:

Segment 4a:

1 → Galja: Ãj! Lãri:s! Pãmagi:!

OW LARISSA HELP
Ow! Larissa! Help!
2 Galja: Huhm-huhm-huhm.
308 Olga Griswold

WHINING SOUNDS
3 Larissa: hãh-hãh-hãh-hãh
MOCK CRYING
wah-wah-wah-wah

From the point of view of physical accessibility, Larissa is not the best
choice as a helper: Up to the moment Galja cries out for her help (line 1),
she has not been party to Galja’s and Maja’s activities. Moreover, by the
time the appeal is issued, Larissa has passed the monkey bars by several
feet without even looking at them (see Figure 5). Maja, on the other hand,
has been standing much closer to Galja and observing her gymnastics and
is, therefore, in a much better position to provide assistance. Yet it is Laris-
sa whom Galja chooses to ask for help, thus casting her as a powerful figure
capable of and responsible for providing assistance to those who are
weaker.
As soon as the appeal is issued, Larissa stops abruptly, assumes the
posture and look of a person generally put on by others, and starts back to
the monkey bars (Figure 5). She exaggeratedly rubs her eyes and mocks a
crying baby (line 3 and Figure 6). In this way, by responding to the plea,
Larissa accepts the responsibility for helping Galja and at the same time
publicly displaying her reluctance to do so. This physical display of the
negative stance toward the request for help casts Galja as a helpless person,
a baby, thus placing her into a subordinate position. It is important to note,
however, that Larissa’s mocking of Galja’s childish behavior is responsive
to Galja’s own whining cries (line 2) through which Galja displays her
helplessness, associated with her subordinate status in the group.

FIGURE 5 Larissa’s response to the cry for help.

Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 309

FIGURE 6 Mocking a crybaby.

Galja’s powerless status is further confirmed when Larissa issues un-

mitigated directives for her to assist in her own extrication and uses an in-
sult (line 7). These linguistic actions further display Larissa’s stance to-
ward Galja as dependent and inept:

Segment 4b:

4 Galja: Ã::h,
WHINING SOUND
Ã::h,
5 Larissa: uh-hãh.
MOCKING WHINING
Wãh.
6 Galja: Ã::h.
WHINING SOUND
Ã::h.
7 → Larissa: Padnima:jsja:. (_)°Zhirna-. °Padnimaj.= Padnimaj.
LIFT-SELF. (-)°FAT. °LIFT. LIFT.
Lift yourself up.(-) °fatso.°Lift it up.= =Lift it up.
8 (0.2)
9 → Galja: Ã:h.Ãh
WHINING SOUND
10 → Larissa: Kak zalezla tak i dalzhna sliza:tj.
HOW CLIMBED UP SO AND MUST CLIMB DOWN
You oughtta get down just like you got up

Larissa’s chastising of Galja for getting into the monkey bars and not
being able to get out on her own (line 10) is consistent with her acceptance
310 Olga Griswold

of the authoritative status as a capable, albeit unwilling, helper at the begin-

ning of the sequence. Note that Larissa frames her reprimand in terms of
what behavior is presumably appropriate for a self-sufficient person. The
reprimand is delivered as Larissa, having helped Galja out of the monkey
bars, walks away from the scene—or in other words as an utterance closing
the business at hand and the interaction concerning it.

Subordination through withdrawal from the interaction. However,

Galja is not the only participant ascribing a power onto Larissa. Maja, who
remains silent throughout the episode, accomplishes the same by moving
in the interactional space in such a way as to display her deferment to Laris-
sa’s authority as a more competent helper. Before Galja calls for help, Maja
is standing right next to the monkey bars, watching Galja. As soon as Galja
begins to cry out for assistance, Maja withdraws her gaze, turns her back to
the monkey bars, and steps away from them (Figure 5). Maja will not
reengage in the interaction until the help-giving sequence is completed and
Larissa starts back on her way, at which point she will run after Larissa,
calling her name. By physically removing herself from the scene, Maja dis-
plays her willingness to relinquish the responsibility for helping a playmate
and as a result, her disinclination to vie for an authoritative position. Maja’s
absenting herself from the encounter makes visible her status as a person
less powerful than Larissa. We thus see that the interactive display of au-
thoritative status among the three girls is done not only through speech ac-
tions but also through their positioning of themselves within the physical
space of the interaction.

CONCLUSION

Most studies of authoritative structures across cultures have treated author-

ity as based on such criteria as age, gender, cultural knowledge, institu-
tional roles, and so forth. Those of the studies that have employed ethno-
graphic and CA methodologies have examined how members display their
statuses within culturally established authoritative hierarchies by invoking
these criteria in talk-in-interaction. Here, I have attempted to show that in-
teraction participants do not merely display their preexisting statuses in
conversation but jointly coconstruct them through the use of multiple
semiotic fields including language, body, physical space, and objects occu-
pying this space.
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 311

Several insights emerge from this analysis. First, the data presented
here show that bodily orientation plays a significant role in the cocon-
struction of authority. It can be argued that the girls who sought to ascribe
power onto one of their playmates while securing their own places on the
lower strata of the hierarchy accomplished this task through the combina-
tion of at least two semiotic systems—language and the organization of
body in space. They performed their subordinating verbal actions from
crouched positions, literally looking up at the dominant peer, or from posi-
tions of physical helplessness (e.g., being stuck in monkey bars). They di-
verted their gazes and their bodies to remove themselves—symbolically or
physically—from the interactions potentially rife with conflict or competi-
tion with the peer they deemed authoritative. Moreover, in the construction
of their actions, such as complaints, restitutions, and appeals for assistance,
the girls also displayed orientation to material objects crucial to their play.
As C. Goodwin (2000) pointed out, although such objects do not constitute
action in and of themselves, the performance of action by humans without
them is often impossible (p. 1505). The combination of several sign sys-
tems in the girls’ interactions allowed for the disambiguation in the dis-
plays of inferior statuses that may have resulted from the use of powerful
grammatical forms, such as imperatives, bald on-the-record statements of
play roles, or unmitigated negatives, to perform the subordinating verbal
actions.
Second, the data also demonstrated that authority can be ratified from
below in at least two ways: by participants actively and voluntarily placing
themselves in subordinate positions and thus preemptively relinquishing
potential claims for power and by subordinate participants submitting
without protest to the powerful actions and decisions of the authoritative
figure even when they are not satisfied with them. These two ways of power
legitimation provide for the possibility of establishing and maintaining au-
thoritative hierarchies in nonconflictual, noncompetitive environments.
Third, based on the data presented, it can be argued that interactants
treat authoritative criteria not as preexisting attributes that entitle individu-
als possessing them to particular statuses but rather as tools that can be ma-
nipulated in interaction to establish an authoritative hierarchy. I have
shown, for example, the actual ages of the playmates were not the sole fac-
tor in the distribution of play roles. The personal relationships of the group
members with the dominant peer also played a significant role in such dis-
tribution. Nevertheless, older play roles still held more prestige for the
group members. In other words, age as an authoritative criterion appeared
312 Olga Griswold

to matter when it was relevant to the fictional play frame and, at the same
time, not to matter to the same degree as a personal attribute of the play-
mates. These findings suggest that no authoritative criterion, be it age,
knowledge, expertise, and so forth, is absolute in its power to organize hier-
archical relationships.
Finally, the findings of this study provide a contribution to the research
on language and gender. To date, much of this research has been based on
determining the differences in male and female communication styles, fre-
quently emphasizing the powerfulness and aggressiveness of male talk
contrasted by the cooperativeness and politeness of female talk (Weather-
all, 2002). Although recent studies have begun to deconstruct the notion
that females are incapable of exercising power over others, most of such
studies have focused on investigating conflict situations in which girls em-
ployed powerful language to win. The research on female interaction in the
nonoppositional environments continues to maintain that women and girls
work hard to maintain social equality and consensus through language use.
This study demonstrates that this is not always the case and that girls, even
when not engaged in conflict, display a high level of concern with social hi-
erarchy and are therefore active agents in charge of organizing their social
worlds.

NOTES

1 However, see the work of M. H. Goodwin on embodied stance and morality.

2 The names of all participants were changed to protect their confidentiality.
3 Due to the complexity of the economic situation in post-Soviet Russia, it is frequently
impossible to determine the socioeconomic class of some families using commonly ac-
cepted Western standards. For example, it is not infrequent that adults with college or
even advanced academic degrees may be making a living as convenience store clerks,
mechanics, security guards, or cab drivers, as such jobs currently may provide a higher
income than many white-collar positions outside the private business sector such as
teachers, hospital doctors, production engineers, or civil servants.
4 For some of the girls, the research site was not a permanent residence. Rather, they were
staying with their grandparents for the summer so their parents could pursue full-time
employment, frequently in the nearest large city. These girls did not attend the same
schools as the girls whose permanent residence was near the research site during the ac-
ademic year. Moreover, even the “local” girls were not enrolled in the same class due to
their age differences. Therefore, possible school relationships of the playgroup partici-
pants were not taken into consideration in this study.
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 313

5 Both Dasha and Galja stated that they were 7 years old. The playmates in this group
never invoked their ages in months as a means of comparing their seniority with respect
to the peers of the same age in full years. However, Galja was a few months older than
Dasha, which allowed her to start school a year earlier. Thus, despite being of the same
age, Galja was 1 year ahead of Dasha in school.
6 The deictic particles vot (proximal) and von (distal) do not have readily available lexical
equivalents in English. Depending on the context, they could be translated as this/these,
here, or there, but in their unstressed form, they also frequently combine with pronouns
for additional emphasis or the individuation of an object/objects. Thus, throughout this
article, these particles are marked as DPP (deictic particle, proximal) and DPD (deictic
particle, distal) in the gloss line of the transcripts. I have attempted to convey the addi-
tional emphasis or individuation in the English translation through various grammatical
and lexical means of the English language so as to retain the pragmatic impact of each
Russian utterance as much as possible.
7 The Russian particle a has no clear equivalent in English. It may serve as a contrastive
marker, a marker of speaker continuation, a marker of undesirable consequences, or a
marker of a new topic. Thus, depending on the context, it may be translated as and, but,
or else, or not translated at all. Throughout this article, it is marked as a particle (PRT) in
the gloss line of the transcript and translated with the context-appropriate English dis-
course marker.
8 I am grateful to a reviewer for pointing out that translating the pronoun “jej,” which is
the dative case of the pronoun ona (she) as the possessive hers would add a more au-
thentic flow both to the word-by-word gloss and to the English version of the text. I be-
lieve, however, that preserving the dative case in the gloss and the employment of the
benefactive “for” in the translation serves an important purpose. Galja does not employ
the possessive form jejo (hers), which would imply that Dasha has already assumed the
possession of the dishes or that she should have known that the dishes are for her, and
therefore, her complaint is groundless. Rather, Galja opts for the dative form “jej,”
which suggests that she intends the dishes to go to Dasha but that Dasha is not yet aware
of this fact. Thus, the distinction between the grammatical forms for her and hers con-
stitutes the distinction between an offer of restitution and a rejection of the grounds for
Dasha’s complaint.
9 The Russian educational system consists of 9 years of obligatory education at the ele-
mentary and middle school level. The two additional years of high school—10th and
11th grades—are optional unless a student plans to pursue university studies.
10 Larissa’s choice of words in describing Corinna’s role presents particular interest for
understanding the cultural attitudes toward education observed in this play group.
Larissa uses the verb “perekhodit,” which can be roughly translated as is transitioning,
with respect to Corinna’s starting college (line 7). This verb is normally reserved for the
description of children’s promotion through the primary and secondary educational
systems. In other words, the verb can be applied to a student being promoted from one
grade level to another. The verb is generally not used to describe one’s transition from
the secondary educational level to tertiary. The use of this word by Larissa suggests that
314 Olga Griswold

for her—and possibly for the rest of the girls in the playgroup—college education is
seen as part and parcel of one’s maturation rather than an option one may or may not
pursue on completing high school.
11 Galja’s utterance here is ungrammatical. The Russian language allows for the omission
of verbs of motion and location without the loss of meaning as long as the appropriate
form of the noun is preserved. Verbs of motion require the use of a prepositional phrase
with the noun in the accusative case. Verbs of location require the use of ablative (prep-
ositional) case. Galja uses both, thus producing a structure that is ambiguous with re-
spect to whether she is inquiring about her current or future grade level. Larissa’s subse-
quent use of the accusative in line 18 makes her decision unambiguous as being about
Galja’s future grade level.
12 The choice between first or second grade that Galja seeks also reflects her knowledge of
an important aspect of the Russian educational system in which parents can choose to
start their child’s formal schooling either at age 6 or at age 7. A 7-year-old is thus as
likely to be a first grader as a second grader.
13 I would like to thank Amy Kyratzis for pointing out this important aspect of the action
unfolding in this segment.
14 I am grateful to a reviewer who drew my attention to the possibility that the verb in this
line is skazhu /skaZu/ (say) rather than “skhazhu” /sxaZu/ (the perfective determinate
form of “go” as opposed to the perfective indeterminate “pajdu”). On reviewing the au-
dio and video data carefully, I am preserving the original transcript. The redoubling of
the determinate and indeterminate Russian verbs usually translated into English as “go”
is not unusual in Russian conversation. Although the verb pojti is closest to the English
go, the verb skhodit implies a return trip and can roughly be translated as go and come
back.
15 “Shkolnik” is a popular name for school supply stores. The tradition of naming particu-
lar types of stores with particular names goes back to the Soviet era when all retail oper-
ations were owned and controlled by the government. The same name does not reflect
the store belonging to a retail chain.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among
elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169–187.
Agha, A. (1993). Grammatical and indexical convention in honorific discourse. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 3, 131–163.
Agha, A. (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 277–301.
Allen, M. (1984). Elders, chiefs, and big men: authority legitimation and political evolution
in Melanesia. American Ethnologist, 11, 20–41.
Atkinson, J., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Power and politics in organizations: The social
psychology of conflict, coalitions, and bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 315

Banton, M. (1965). Roles: An introduction to the study of social relations. New York: Basic
Books.
Barnes, M. K., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1995). Speaking in a double-voice: Role-making as in-
fluence in preschoolers’ fantasy play situation. Research on Language and Social In-
teraction, 28, 351–389.
Berentzen, S. (1984). Children constructing their social world: An analysis of gender con-
trast in children’s interaction in a nursery school. Bergen, Norway: Department of So-
cial Anthropology, University of Bergen.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Authorized language: the social conditions for the effectiveness of rit-
ual discourse. In P. Bordieu (Ed.), Language and symbolic power (pp. 107–116).
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873–884.
Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Davis, K. (1988). Paternalism under the microscope. In A. D. Todd & S. Fisher (Eds.), Gen-
der and discourse: The power of talk (pp. 19–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DeHart, G. B. (1996). Gender and mitigation in 4-year-olds’ pretend play talk with siblings.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 81–96.
Duranti, A. (1992). Language and bodies in social space: Samoan ceremonial greetings.
American Anthropologist, 94, 657–691.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London and New
York: Routledge.
Evaldsson, A.-C. (2003). Throwing like a girl? Situating gender differences in physicality
across game contexts. Childhood, 10, 475–497.
Evaldsson, A.-C. (2004). Shifting moral stances: morality and gender in same-sex and
cross-sex game interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 331–363.
Evaldsson, A-C. (2007/this issue). Accounting for friendship: Moral ordering and category
membership in preadolescent girls’ relational talk. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 40, 377–404.
Goodenough, W. H. (1965). Rethinking “status” and “role:” Toward a general model of the
cultural organization of social relationships. In M. Banton (Ed.), The relevance of
models for social anthropology (pp. 1–24). New York: Praeger.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hear-
ers. New York: Academic.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
Goodwin, M. H. (1988). Cooperation and competition across girls’ play activities. In A. D.
Todd & S. Fisher (Eds.), Gender and discourse: The power of discourse (pp. 55–96).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black chil-
dren. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Orchestrating participation in events: Powerful talk among African
American girls. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power:
Proceedings of the second Berkley Women and Language Conference (pp. 182–196).
Berkley: University of California, Berkeley Women and Language Group.
316 Olga Griswold

Goodwin, M. H. (1995). Co-construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 28, 261–281.
Goodwin, M. H. (2001). Organizing participation in cross-sex jump rope: Situating gender
differences within longitudinal studies of activities. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 34, 75–106.
Goodwin, M. H. (2002). Building power asymmetries in girls’ interaction. Discourse & So-
ciety, 13, 715–730.
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gore, J. M. (1994, April). Power and pedagogy: An empirical investigation of four sites. Pa-
per presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
Gore, J. M. (1996, November). Understanding power relations in pedagogy. Paper pre-
sented at the joint meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education
and the Educational Research Association, Singapore.
Heritage,J.,&Sefi,S.(1992).Dilemmasofadvice:Aspectsofthedeliveryandreceptionofadvice
in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In P. Drew & J. C. Heritage
(Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 359–419). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998). Situating children’s social competence. In I. Hutchby
& J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 7–26).
Washington, DC: Falmer.
Jacquemet, M. (2001). Conflict. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture (pp.
37–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Keating, E. (1998). Power sharing: Language, rank, gender, and social space in Pohnpei,
Micronesia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiesling, S. F. (2001). “Now I gotta watch what I say”: Shifting constructions of masculinity
in discourse. Linguistic Anthropology, 11, 250–273.
Kyratzis, A., & Guo, J. (1996). “Separate worlds for boys and girls?” Views from U.S. and
Chinese mixed-sex friendship groups. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J.
Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan
Ervin-Tripp. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kyratzis, A., & Guo, J. (2001). Preschool boys and girls verbal conflict strategies in the
United States and China. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 45–73.
Kyratzis, A., Marx, T., & Wade, E. R. (2001). Preschoolers’ communicative competence:
Register shift in the marking of power in different contexts of friendship group talk.
First Language, 21, 387–431.
Lentz, C. (1998). The chief, the mine captain and the politician: Legitimating power in
northern Ghana. Africa, 68, 46–67.
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a con-
text-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201.
Lever, J. R. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 43, 471–483.
Linton, R. (1973). Status and role. In P. Bohannan & M. Glazer (Eds.), High points in an-
thropology (pp. 187–200). New York: Knopf.
Lovell, T. (2003). Resisting with authority: Historical specificity, agency and performative
self. Theory, Culture & Society, 20, 1–17.
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 317

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cross-cultural approach to male-female miscom-

munication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Communication, language, and social identity
(pp. 196–216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Matoesian, G. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, D. W. (1985). How children start arguments. Language in Society, 14, 1–20.
Mehan, H. (1996). The construction of an LD student: A case study in the politics of repre-
sentation. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp.
253–276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ostrowski, D. (2002). The façade of legitimacy: Exchange of power and authority in early
modern Russia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44, 534–563.
Rushforth, S. (1992). The legitimation of beliefs in a hunter-gatherer society: Bearlake
Athapaskan knowledge and authority. American Ethologist, 19, 483–500.
Sachs, J. (1987). Preschool boys’ and girls’ language use in pretend play. In S. Philips, S.
Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp.
178–188). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1 and 2). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organiza-
tion of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Scott, J. P. (1973). Power and authority: A comment on Spencer and Martin. The British
Journal of Sociology, 24, 101–107.
Shapiro, S. J. (2001). The paradoxes of authority. Newsletter on Philosophy and Law, (2).
Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/news-
letters/v00n2/ law/04.asp
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Pro-
cesses, 13, 5–31.
Sheldon, A. (1992). Preschool girls’ discourse competence: Managing conflict. In K. Hall,
M. Bucholtz, & B. Moomwomon (Eds.), Locating power (pp. 528–539). Proceedings
of the Second Berkley Women and Language Conference. Berkley: University of Cal-
ifornia, Berkley Women and Language Group.
Sheldon, A. (1996). You can be the baby brother, but you aren’t born yet: Preschool girls’
negotiation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 29, 57–80.
Sheldon, A. (1997). Talking power: Girls, gender, enculturation and discourse. In R. Wodak
(Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 225–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spencer, M. (1970). Weber on legitimate norms and authority. The British Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 21, 123–134.
Thetela, P. (2003). Discourse, culture, and the law: The analysis of crosstalk in the South
African bilingual courtroom. AILA Review, 16, 78–88.
Treichler, R., Franke, R., Kramarae, C., Zoppi, K., & Beckman, H. (1984). Problems and
problems: Power relationships in a medical encounter. In C. Kramarae, M. Schutz, &
W. M. O’Barr (Eds.), Language and power (pp. 62–88). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. New York: Routledge.
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
318 Olga Griswold

APPENDIX A

Transcription Conventions

Throughout this article, standard CA transcription conventions with

minor modifications have been used. The transcription symbols are as
follows:

[ Left square bracket the beginning of overlapping talk

] Right square bracket the end of overlapping talk
. Period falling intonation
? Question mark rising intonation
, Comma continuing intonation
- Dash abrupt cut-off
= Equal sign talk produced without transition-space
silence
: Column prolonged sound; multiple columns
indicate longer sounds.
ãj Tilde nasalized quality of the marked sound
Larissa Underline prominent syllable
MOM All caps loud speech
° Degree sign quiet speech
(Larissa) Parentheses approximation of what is hearable on
the tape
↑ Upwards arrow Heightened pitch
↓ Downwards arrow Lowered pitch
→ Right arrow Focal turn in transcript
h(h) Laughter
tj Superscript “j” Palatalized sound
k`chajusj Grave over space strongly reduced vowel
* Asterisk Ungrammatical expression
(0.5) Number in parentheses Pause in seconds (e.g. 0.4–a pause
of four tenths of a second)
(.) Period in parentheses Pause of 0.1 of a second or less
((smiling)) Double parentheses, Transcriber’s comments
Italicized text
Russian Girls’ Pretend Play 319

APPENDIX B

Morpheme Gloss Abbreviations

1, 2, 3 First, second, or third person suffix

ABL Ablative
ACC Accusative
DAT Dative
DPD Deictic particle - distal
DPP Deictic particle - proximal
FUT Future tense
NOM Nominative
PRT Particle